From: girvin@aol.com (GIRVIN)
Date: 18 Oct 1998 12:28:20 EDT
One single flaw in your logic, Kalamere. Jeff is not the overlord.
A staunch defender of the overlord, but still not him.
This matter is not simply ascribed to debt and so forth for were it then there would be no need of the council, and Dalamar would be stripped of his crown. Huma's date was with Dalamar. How can Jeff pay that debt when he is not Dalamar? Whether Dalamar intended to Test Huma or not is irrelevant in this case because this was not a simple debt. It was a written and binding agreement to meet face to face. Huma kept his end of *that* bargain.
Further more Kalamere, would you have the council consider your career should they choose were a question to arrive on your challenge?
The rules have no prejudice, the matter at hand was and is *not* Huma, but Dalamar. I pray that we would remember that Huma kept his bargain, and met the challenge and Dalamar was declared in forfeit. That is the matter given to the council. Events between Jeff and Huma are just that, between Jeff and Huma. I would prefer that we not begin weighing the wronged parties sins. Huma followed the rules, as distasteful as his actions maybe I saw not
one soul try and stop a man that has treat a baron's ring like garbage, tossing it aside from making a second challenge. Where was your precious sense of honor then? Or was it because Clutch is not one of your own that you all sat by and let a man who has already once cast aside a baron's ring challenge yet again? If we are to impose a set of ethical guidelines then they should apply to all, not just the "Questrion Rising." Again Huma and Jeff
are NOT the matter at hand. The challenge match is the matter at hand. Dalamar's forfeiture. I do not see a place there to criminalize Huma and enforce a code of conduct that is written no place.
You said before that the council should not be expected to make decisions uninformed Kalamere, but you expect to enforce guidelines that are not written in a single place and call that justice? Now who is asking others to be uninformed?
That is my mind and I will stand by it.
Constant,
~Brian Girvin
One Baron's thoughts
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 18 Oct 1998 12:56:06 EDT
Cygnet,
Whether match between Huma and Jeff was "worthless" or not, is a matter of individual judgment. The point of the analogy is that it must be considered. If it is considered and disgarded, then so be it, but either way those making the decision should not turn a blind eye to the fact it took place.
For my own judgement of the matter, I do not feel it was "worthless." As a general matter, no court will seek to validate what one man believes the value of something to be. If you wish to buy my daggers for 200 gold, even though I only paid 50 for them, that is your choice. If you attempt to then go back to the court and say I over charged you the case will be thrown out. The contract was for the exchange of two daggers for 200 gold and it was
exactly what took place.
Here, Huma equated his right to challenge Dalamar to the value of Jeff's ring. The matter was meant to directly effect the issue pending before the council.. just as if G'nort asks Jaycy for the money I owe him. If Jaycy says she cannot pay him the money but offers her sword in its stead, the court will still find against G'nort in his case again me if he accepts it. Just because G'nort then finds that no merchant will let him sell the blade for
the amount I owe him, does not mean the contract is void. It was his own judgment at the time of the contract that will be enforced. (unless Jaycy lied to him about what it was worth, but I'm assuming here that she did not)
Again, an individual value judgment. While you believe the warlord has been cheated, I believe he has gotten exactly what he bargained for... no more, no less.
~Kalamere
Date: 18 Oct 1998 12:56:06 EDT
Cygnet,
Whether match between Huma and Jeff was "worthless" or not, is a matter of individual judgment. The point of the analogy is that it must be considered. If it is considered and disgarded, then so be it, but either way those making the decision should not turn a blind eye to the fact it took place.
For my own judgement of the matter, I do not feel it was "worthless." As a general matter, no court will seek to validate what one man believes the value of something to be. If you wish to buy my daggers for 200 gold, even though I only paid 50 for them, that is your choice. If you attempt to then go back to the court and say I over charged you the case will be thrown out. The contract was for the exchange of two daggers for 200 gold and it was
exactly what took place.
Here, Huma equated his right to challenge Dalamar to the value of Jeff's ring. The matter was meant to directly effect the issue pending before the council.. just as if G'nort asks Jaycy for the money I owe him. If Jaycy says she cannot pay him the money but offers her sword in its stead, the court will still find against G'nort in his case again me if he accepts it. Just because G'nort then finds that no merchant will let him sell the blade for
the amount I owe him, does not mean the contract is void. It was his own judgment at the time of the contract that will be enforced. (unless Jaycy lied to him about what it was worth, but I'm assuming here that she did not)
Again, an individual value judgment. While you believe the warlord has been cheated, I believe he has gotten exactly what he bargained for... no more, no less.
~Kalamere
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: girvin@aol.com (GIRVIN)
Date: 18 Oct 1998 13:29:05 EDT
I'll ask once more.
When did rights to challenge become tradable? Tell me when the rules stated the right to challenge could be sold or bartered. (I'll buy anyone's right to challenge for 10,000 in gold!) Furthermore, the right was no longer Huma's to trade. He had given that up once Reiver declared the match a forfeit and sent the matter to the council. The challenge was decided and it was judged a forfeit.
The only legal option left was to reschedule and then Huma would have to voluntarily forfeit once the match was met. Regardless of that, there was an out come of the challenge match. Huma takes the match by forfeit. That is the clear rule. If I call Gnort to a duel and after three rounds find I must leave, is the duel not complete? The same standard applies here, but rather than leaving the matter of win or Tie to the officials is given to the
Baron's Council. Huma had his duel and his opponent did not show. To say that Jeff can pay Dalamar's debt is illogical Kalamere, because as I said before Huma's challenge was to Dalamar, not Jeff.
Huma's only chance for facing the overlord this cycle would be this council allowing the match to proceed, but it is clear that this option is not agreeable to this council and so the crossing of swords is circumvented and rather than seeing Dalamar victor his own cause has he has almost countless times, he has defended his crown without even showing before Huma.
I will not lessen Dalamar's loss, but I will say that the best option is still and remains sword to sword and skill against skill. I have no doubt of who would victor in such a case. He has done it many times before.
I will say one final time that Huma's right to challenge the overlord was gone once a final outcome was announced. It is gone and not Huma's nor the council's to give or take away.
Constant,
~Brian Girvin
© G Irvin 1998 all rights reserved
Date: 18 Oct 1998 13:29:05 EDT
I'll ask once more.
When did rights to challenge become tradable? Tell me when the rules stated the right to challenge could be sold or bartered. (I'll buy anyone's right to challenge for 10,000 in gold!) Furthermore, the right was no longer Huma's to trade. He had given that up once Reiver declared the match a forfeit and sent the matter to the council. The challenge was decided and it was judged a forfeit.
The only legal option left was to reschedule and then Huma would have to voluntarily forfeit once the match was met. Regardless of that, there was an out come of the challenge match. Huma takes the match by forfeit. That is the clear rule. If I call Gnort to a duel and after three rounds find I must leave, is the duel not complete? The same standard applies here, but rather than leaving the matter of win or Tie to the officials is given to the
Baron's Council. Huma had his duel and his opponent did not show. To say that Jeff can pay Dalamar's debt is illogical Kalamere, because as I said before Huma's challenge was to Dalamar, not Jeff.
Huma's only chance for facing the overlord this cycle would be this council allowing the match to proceed, but it is clear that this option is not agreeable to this council and so the crossing of swords is circumvented and rather than seeing Dalamar victor his own cause has he has almost countless times, he has defended his crown without even showing before Huma.
I will not lessen Dalamar's loss, but I will say that the best option is still and remains sword to sword and skill against skill. I have no doubt of who would victor in such a case. He has done it many times before.
I will say one final time that Huma's right to challenge the overlord was gone once a final outcome was announced. It is gone and not Huma's nor the council's to give or take away.
Constant,
~Brian Girvin
© G Irvin 1998 all rights reserved
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: silentcris@aol.com (SilentCris)
Date: 18 Oct 1998 13:49:59 EDT
From the desk of Cristian de Oro
Director of Archaelogy; Black Friday, Inc.
Kalamere,
Again, you confound me with your explanations. The Baron's Council as a body of equity? So many times it has been stated before that this is *not* a court of justice... I believe you even said so yourself. And here you declare the Baron's Council a chancery court by which one makes decisions based on broad principles of right and justice. That is suggesting that common law, or rather, the rules of the Arena, are unsuitable to making the simple
decision regarding the Overlord's forfeiture. How can one suddenly declare the Council a body of equity (and, at the same time, a body of conscience since they are one in the same) when the whole of its creation was clearly to interpret the rules and decide punishments based solely on the hard facts of the case, not any declarations of honor or dishonor.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to explain this concept. Even if this were a body of equity, you barons could only act as jury and it would be up to either Helix or Baron AJay to decide the final equitable relief... as they would act as judge. Equitable judgment cannot be passed by the jury, nor can the jury act as judge.
So, please, sir... is this Baron's Council indeed a body of equity? If so, how does one justify this given its past uses as only passing judgment on the question at hand (re Darkness v. Council, Clutch v. Council and so many other cases). Though you may have created the rules for Council, it appears your rules were vague and it is no longer up to you to declare the council a body it never was before.
In all honesty, this is Overlord v. Council, mitigating circumstances (Huma's dishonor) have pulled the focus from the Overlord's forfeiture. As I said before... should you wish to judge Huma's dishonor, create a separate court, people it with not only Barons and Warlords but lower ranks as well, and you may have your body of equity to decide on Huma's honor. Until then, I would plead with you to remain focused on the subject at hand...
only the Overlord's forfeiture and nothing more.
Respectfully,
Cristian de Oro
Date: 18 Oct 1998 13:49:59 EDT
From the desk of Cristian de Oro
Director of Archaelogy; Black Friday, Inc.
Kalamere,
Again, you confound me with your explanations. The Baron's Council as a body of equity? So many times it has been stated before that this is *not* a court of justice... I believe you even said so yourself. And here you declare the Baron's Council a chancery court by which one makes decisions based on broad principles of right and justice. That is suggesting that common law, or rather, the rules of the Arena, are unsuitable to making the simple
decision regarding the Overlord's forfeiture. How can one suddenly declare the Council a body of equity (and, at the same time, a body of conscience since they are one in the same) when the whole of its creation was clearly to interpret the rules and decide punishments based solely on the hard facts of the case, not any declarations of honor or dishonor.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to explain this concept. Even if this were a body of equity, you barons could only act as jury and it would be up to either Helix or Baron AJay to decide the final equitable relief... as they would act as judge. Equitable judgment cannot be passed by the jury, nor can the jury act as judge.
So, please, sir... is this Baron's Council indeed a body of equity? If so, how does one justify this given its past uses as only passing judgment on the question at hand (re Darkness v. Council, Clutch v. Council and so many other cases). Though you may have created the rules for Council, it appears your rules were vague and it is no longer up to you to declare the council a body it never was before.
In all honesty, this is Overlord v. Council, mitigating circumstances (Huma's dishonor) have pulled the focus from the Overlord's forfeiture. As I said before... should you wish to judge Huma's dishonor, create a separate court, people it with not only Barons and Warlords but lower ranks as well, and you may have your body of equity to decide on Huma's honor. Until then, I would plead with you to remain focused on the subject at hand...
only the Overlord's forfeiture and nothing more.
Respectfully,
Cristian de Oro
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: cygnetsera@aol.com (CygnetSera)
Date: 18 Oct 1998 14:12:17 EDT
>While you believe the warlord has been cheated, I believe he has gotten
>exactly what he bargained for... no more, no less.
>
Reading Kal's note to her, Cyggy grins and whispers down to Nimmy beside her,
"Perhaps Dalamar is the only reaping the benefits of the Baron's *Bargain* table."
Date: 18 Oct 1998 14:12:17 EDT
>While you believe the warlord has been cheated, I believe he has gotten
>exactly what he bargained for... no more, no less.
>
Reading Kal's note to her, Cyggy grins and whispers down to Nimmy beside her,
"Perhaps Dalamar is the only reaping the benefits of the Baron's *Bargain* table."
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnimishrw@aol.com (Gnimish RW)
Date: 18 Oct 1998 14:14:57 EDT
Kalamere,
You want to know why Cygnet refers to the match as "worthless" and why I agree with her?
The match took place outside the boundaries of the rules of the Duel of Swords.
What you are saying, if you think the match between Jeffrey and Huma is valid in any way, is that a challenge can be resolved at any time, by anyone...not just the challenger and the challenged, but any Joe Dueler who wants to make a scene.
If Dalamar had opted to use the Test of Worthiness, with Jeffrey as his champion, fine. But that was not the case. Whether or not to administer the Test of Worthiness is *not* up to Jeffrey, either.
Personally, I think that there is a separate agenda here. I honestly think that those of you in the position to make the ruling here do not want Dalamar off the throne, and are therefore blatantly ignoring the rules and trying to place the focus upon the match between Huma and Jeffrey, which has no more weight than any duel in the Arena on a Thursday night, and you know it.
-Gnimish Gnimoi
Companion and Love to Cygnet Seraphin
Lord of House Gnimoi
Emperor of Shylasa
Warlord of DoS
Date: 18 Oct 1998 14:14:57 EDT
Kalamere,
You want to know why Cygnet refers to the match as "worthless" and why I agree with her?
The match took place outside the boundaries of the rules of the Duel of Swords.
What you are saying, if you think the match between Jeffrey and Huma is valid in any way, is that a challenge can be resolved at any time, by anyone...not just the challenger and the challenged, but any Joe Dueler who wants to make a scene.
If Dalamar had opted to use the Test of Worthiness, with Jeffrey as his champion, fine. But that was not the case. Whether or not to administer the Test of Worthiness is *not* up to Jeffrey, either.
Personally, I think that there is a separate agenda here. I honestly think that those of you in the position to make the ruling here do not want Dalamar off the throne, and are therefore blatantly ignoring the rules and trying to place the focus upon the match between Huma and Jeffrey, which has no more weight than any duel in the Arena on a Thursday night, and you know it.
-Gnimish Gnimoi
Companion and Love to Cygnet Seraphin
Lord of House Gnimoi
Emperor of Shylasa
Warlord of DoS
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 18 Oct 1998 14:30:21 EDT
Master Girvin,
Methinks tis nae that Kalamere wishes to enforce guidelines that are not written, but that the Council and its esteemed members wish to arrive at a fair and equitable solution for a situation taking into account all the information that hast been given unto them.
Though I do hold that the matter wast given unto the council precipitously that eve, in that the Overlord's Second and his Champion were both present, in that a Renegade Baron wast also present, in that the Challenger wast present, in that the "Rules of Engagement" nae demand nor require that the Overlord be present, in that a Test of Worthiness may have taken place within the "written" guidelines, the matter ist now in the hands of the Council.
Though I do hold that the Oathbreaker Huma Dragonbane didst make contract with the Loyal Baron Jeffrey Oakenshield both verbally before witnesses and in his own hand upon the corkboard, and didst renege on his oath most publicly on the self same corkboard making the community aware of his perfidious act, and that, had the challenge nae been so precipitiously ruled forfeit, the matter wouldst nae now be in the hands of the Council, the fact remains
that is has arrived before them.
The situation ist unique, and I for one, dinna believe the Council has the intention to nor shall unfairly deal with either with the Overlord nor with the Warlord. I, however, wouldst nae wish the Council to wear blinders, for tis nae only the "Letter" of the Law, but also the "Spirit" of the Law which mayhap must be taken into account as well.
Jona.
Date: 18 Oct 1998 14:30:21 EDT
Master Girvin,
Methinks tis nae that Kalamere wishes to enforce guidelines that are not written, but that the Council and its esteemed members wish to arrive at a fair and equitable solution for a situation taking into account all the information that hast been given unto them.
Though I do hold that the matter wast given unto the council precipitously that eve, in that the Overlord's Second and his Champion were both present, in that a Renegade Baron wast also present, in that the Challenger wast present, in that the "Rules of Engagement" nae demand nor require that the Overlord be present, in that a Test of Worthiness may have taken place within the "written" guidelines, the matter ist now in the hands of the Council.
Though I do hold that the Oathbreaker Huma Dragonbane didst make contract with the Loyal Baron Jeffrey Oakenshield both verbally before witnesses and in his own hand upon the corkboard, and didst renege on his oath most publicly on the self same corkboard making the community aware of his perfidious act, and that, had the challenge nae been so precipitiously ruled forfeit, the matter wouldst nae now be in the hands of the Council, the fact remains
that is has arrived before them.
The situation ist unique, and I for one, dinna believe the Council has the intention to nor shall unfairly deal with either with the Overlord nor with the Warlord. I, however, wouldst nae wish the Council to wear blinders, for tis nae only the "Letter" of the Law, but also the "Spirit" of the Law which mayhap must be taken into account as well.
Jona.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 18 Oct 1998 14:32:25 EDT
>Say I borrow money from G'nort and promise to pay it back on Monday. Once
>Monday rolls around I have not yet paid and G'nort takes the matter to court.
>Court is not a quick process and he knows that it will take at least a week
>to get his money back. On Tuesday, G'nort meets with Jaycy and asks if she
>won't front the money for me. If Jaycy gives G'nort the money, his court
>case against me will fail, as he's already been paid.
Actually, Kal, I don't agree. Dal wasn't there to ask Jeff to "front the money" for him, thus it was Jeff's "personal loan".
If you are saying it is Huma that is "asking the money be forwarded to him", then I still disagree. Huma was shooting for the overlord title. He would not have earned the title if he won.
Finally, the court would not take their time to settle unwritten disputes. They need legal documents stating that "x invested in y's claim, and if the claim fails, then y owes x money."
Because Nycholas (as an official upholding the law of DoS) said the match was unofficial, then hypothetically, he is saying "This meeting shall not be disputed in the court of law". Those are my thoughts.
Simply,
Var Medici-Giovanni
±
|¯Proud father, proud husband¯|
|¯Holder of the Tenth Ring¯|
|¯Soul dedicated to Noelle¯|
|¯Devoted to his children¯|
Date: 18 Oct 1998 14:32:25 EDT
>Say I borrow money from G'nort and promise to pay it back on Monday. Once
>Monday rolls around I have not yet paid and G'nort takes the matter to court.
>Court is not a quick process and he knows that it will take at least a week
>to get his money back. On Tuesday, G'nort meets with Jaycy and asks if she
>won't front the money for me. If Jaycy gives G'nort the money, his court
>case against me will fail, as he's already been paid.
Actually, Kal, I don't agree. Dal wasn't there to ask Jeff to "front the money" for him, thus it was Jeff's "personal loan".
If you are saying it is Huma that is "asking the money be forwarded to him", then I still disagree. Huma was shooting for the overlord title. He would not have earned the title if he won.
Finally, the court would not take their time to settle unwritten disputes. They need legal documents stating that "x invested in y's claim, and if the claim fails, then y owes x money."
Because Nycholas (as an official upholding the law of DoS) said the match was unofficial, then hypothetically, he is saying "This meeting shall not be disputed in the court of law". Those are my thoughts.
Simply,
Var Medici-Giovanni
±
|¯Proud father, proud husband¯|
|¯Holder of the Tenth Ring¯|
|¯Soul dedicated to Noelle¯|
|¯Devoted to his children¯|
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: prlunicorn@aol.com (PrlUnicorn)
Date: 18 Oct 1998 16:59:54 EDT
>>(1) The court, in order to rule fairly, *must* consider the fact that Jaycy has already paid the money. G'nort's claim has been settled out of court and he does not deserve twice the money. It is a side fact that I get the boon of not having to pay him even though I was wrong. If
Jaycy further decides that I don't have to pay her back, then I've gotten off completely free and it's still the end of the matter.
(2) The court will not force a penalty against either G'nort or Jaycy simply because they made an out of court decision. I mention this because some feel Huma and Jeff were in the wrong for "circumventing" the council. My experience with court systems is that such dealings are looked upon favorably, rather than things to be punished. It is the very reason there are so many settlements.
<<
Something you forgot to mention, Kal.
If Jaycy fronts to money to G'nort for you without a verbal or written agreement regarding that exact thing that you are not legally obligated to pay her pay her back. That would be a moral obligation since she did so from the goodness of her heart. I doubt the court could force you to pay it back.
Collie
Date: 18 Oct 1998 16:59:54 EDT
>>(1) The court, in order to rule fairly, *must* consider the fact that Jaycy has already paid the money. G'nort's claim has been settled out of court and he does not deserve twice the money. It is a side fact that I get the boon of not having to pay him even though I was wrong. If
Jaycy further decides that I don't have to pay her back, then I've gotten off completely free and it's still the end of the matter.
(2) The court will not force a penalty against either G'nort or Jaycy simply because they made an out of court decision. I mention this because some feel Huma and Jeff were in the wrong for "circumventing" the council. My experience with court systems is that such dealings are looked upon favorably, rather than things to be punished. It is the very reason there are so many settlements.
<<
Something you forgot to mention, Kal.
If Jaycy fronts to money to G'nort for you without a verbal or written agreement regarding that exact thing that you are not legally obligated to pay her pay her back. That would be a moral obligation since she did so from the goodness of her heart. I doubt the court could force you to pay it back.
Collie
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: cygnetsera@aol.com (CygnetSera)
Date: 18 Oct 1998 18:30:30 EDT
Often in matters, if certain information would prejudice a person making a decision, then that information is witheld.
The matter between Huma and Jeffrey is of no bearing on what occured prior to their unofficial duel of honor ,and indeed appears to have prejudiced the Council in rendering a proper action regarding the Overlords forfeit.
Sometimes blinders are not only correct, but useful, where fair, unbiased rulings are sought. And also, in conflicts of interest, when a member of a voting body can not render an impartial vote, he must recuse himself from casting a yae or nae.
Date: 18 Oct 1998 18:30:30 EDT
Often in matters, if certain information would prejudice a person making a decision, then that information is witheld.
The matter between Huma and Jeffrey is of no bearing on what occured prior to their unofficial duel of honor ,and indeed appears to have prejudiced the Council in rendering a proper action regarding the Overlords forfeit.
Sometimes blinders are not only correct, but useful, where fair, unbiased rulings are sought. And also, in conflicts of interest, when a member of a voting body can not render an impartial vote, he must recuse himself from casting a yae or nae.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: prlunicorn@aol.com (PrlUnicorn)
Date: 18 Oct 1998 19:19:35 EDT
((Author's note: Since this post was unsigned I was unsure if Cygnet was indentifying herself as the writer or not. That said.. ))
>Often in matters, if certain information would prejudice a person making a
>decision, then that information is witheld.
>
>The matter between Huma and Jeffrey is of no bearing on what occured prior to
>their unofficial duel of honor ,and indeed appears to have prejudiced the
>Council in rendering a proper action regarding the Overlords forfeit.
>
>Sometimes blinders are not only correct, but useful, where fair, unbiased
>rulings are sought. And also, in conflicts of interest, when a member of a
>voting body can not render an impartial vote, he must recuse himself from
>casting a yae or nae.
I find myself in full agreement with this. Any person in direct conflict of interest shouldn't be casting a vote. If Dalamar is prohibited from casting a ballot for or against himself then Jeff Oakenshield who is in conflict of interest, because of the honor duel as well should be asked to abstain from this vote. My reasoning behind this is that if some members of council have chosen not to overlook the honor duel between Jeffrey Oakenshield
and Huma Dragonbane then the Baron is placed in a conflict of interest.
If the council choses to ignore the duel for purposes of making judgement on Dalamar then Jeff should be allowed to vote. However, if as Kal has stated this honor duel must be taken into consideration then Jeffrey should be asked to abstain just as Dal is, because one can never be impartial in a matter concerning themself.
Date: 18 Oct 1998 19:19:35 EDT
((Author's note: Since this post was unsigned I was unsure if Cygnet was indentifying herself as the writer or not. That said.. ))
>Often in matters, if certain information would prejudice a person making a
>decision, then that information is witheld.
>
>The matter between Huma and Jeffrey is of no bearing on what occured prior to
>their unofficial duel of honor ,and indeed appears to have prejudiced the
>Council in rendering a proper action regarding the Overlords forfeit.
>
>Sometimes blinders are not only correct, but useful, where fair, unbiased
>rulings are sought. And also, in conflicts of interest, when a member of a
>voting body can not render an impartial vote, he must recuse himself from
>casting a yae or nae.
I find myself in full agreement with this. Any person in direct conflict of interest shouldn't be casting a vote. If Dalamar is prohibited from casting a ballot for or against himself then Jeff Oakenshield who is in conflict of interest, because of the honor duel as well should be asked to abstain from this vote. My reasoning behind this is that if some members of council have chosen not to overlook the honor duel between Jeffrey Oakenshield
and Huma Dragonbane then the Baron is placed in a conflict of interest.
If the council choses to ignore the duel for purposes of making judgement on Dalamar then Jeff should be allowed to vote. However, if as Kal has stated this honor duel must be taken into consideration then Jeffrey should be asked to abstain just as Dal is, because one can never be impartial in a matter concerning themself.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 18 Oct 1998 20:03:02 EDT
Many of you are protesting and asking "why is Huma on trial?"
Huma Dragonbane is not on trial. But with any exploration into a dispute, it is frequently found that neither side was entirely innocent.
At its very simplest level, we have a case where a challenge match was to be fought. The challenger was there, the challenged was not. The match was considered "met" by the Supervisor of DoS and she instructed the official to turn the matter over to the Baronial Council as a forfeit against the challenged. Huma Dragonbane and Jeffrey Oakenshield then embarked upon an Honor Match, deemed unofficial but called by a sanctioned caller, whereby if Huma
lost, he would not press his challenge, and if Jeff lost, he would forfeit his ring. Huma lost. Some time later, Dalamar informed the Community that his father had died and this is why he was unable to meet his challenge commitment. Later, Huma went back on his vow and said he would, in fact, press his challenge as per his right.
As a participant in the Baronial Council, I was given this information. The Barons discussed the matter, and it was decided that there would be two phases, or two issues, to deal with.
As per the rules, under Part 2, Challenge Rules, Barons Council (bold emphasis mine),
Item 1, "A Baron's Council shall be convened in the occurrence of a Baron or the Overlord retiring while a challenge is pending or in the case of a forfeit.
<snip>
Item 5, ...Choices will include, but not be limited to;
(a) Granting the challenger the victory by default
(b) Appointing another to fight against the challenger in place of
the person challenged
(c) Voiding the challenge and returning the challenger's peer wins"
After a preliminary discussion, Kalamere culled from the information a short itemized list (herein called "Ballot 1"), which you have all seen:
"1) Who shall hold the title of Overlord?
(a) Dalamar retains the title, with or without some form of censure
(b) Huma takes the title by virtue of Dalamar's failure to appear
(c) A rematch is schedule and fought between Huma and Dalamar to determine the Overlord
(d) Some other method is used to make the determination. One such example here would be Walker's suggestion of the tournament."
While at first glance the rematch seemed the most reasonable, I had to stop and think that, as I said in a previous posting, "Logically, if A is that Dalamar retains his crown, then C must assume that his crown is in question and that he cannot act as Overlord until the rematch has been fought."
Again, as I said in a previous posting, while the match may have been forfeit, I do not believe the title to be forfeit. Dalamar had a death in his family, and we, as a community, should respect the grieving and allow him to defend his title as Overlord. We do not have to award anything to any challenger for a fight he did not fight.
In this Ballot 1 phase, the Baronial Council voted that Dalamar's title was not forfeit. Huma's actions after the matter was turned over to the Council have no bearing on my judgement of Dalamar's title, which is what we were asked to judge.
Huma's actions do, however, have bearing on the next phase of voting (herein called "Ballot 2"), where the council decides on what censures to place on the Overlord, if any, and what to allow the challenger in question. Options include, culled from discussions by Kalamere Ar'Din:
Section I.
A) As to Huma's peer wins:
(1) The should be revoked
(2) They should not be revoked
(3) Other... please explain.
B) As to Huma's right to challenge again this cycle.
(1) Said right should be revoked.
(2) Said right should be revoked only in regard to the Overlord
(3) Huma should retain his right to challenge
(4) Other.. please explain.
C) Herein, list anything else you wish considered in regard to Huma.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Section II.
<snip> ...Herein there are two questions that must be answered. (1) Should the Overlord be censured in some manner and (2) If the Overlord is to be censured, how should it be done.
Huma entered into an honor agreement saying he would not press his right to challenge if he lost. He lost. Later, he decided that he would press his right to challenge. However, he was there for the challenge match, despite hardships placed upon him outside the DoS community.
While I have great sympathy toward Dalamar as losing a family member is devastating, I do not want to give the impression that it is somehow acceptable for a challenged party to not show up to defend a title without some sort of penalty to pay. I do not believe taking away his title is a fair penalty for attending to his family during a death. I do not believe restricting the rights he has as Overlord is fair penalty, either. I give Dalamar the
benefit of the doubt that he informed us as soon as possible. To argue that he could before he left is speculative and irrelevant to the matter at hand.
In summary:
Ballot 1 was strictly about the matter of the title, i.e., who deserves the title? It was decided by majority that Dalamar deserves the title.
Ballot 2 was strictly about the matter of penalty to apply to the Overlord. I can, will, and did, take into consideration Huma's actions, as well as Dalamar's, when deciding the fate of our Overlord and the sanctity and spirit of that title.
I thank you for reading thus far,
Morgan du Cornwall
Baron, 5th Ring
Date: 18 Oct 1998 20:03:02 EDT
Many of you are protesting and asking "why is Huma on trial?"
Huma Dragonbane is not on trial. But with any exploration into a dispute, it is frequently found that neither side was entirely innocent.
At its very simplest level, we have a case where a challenge match was to be fought. The challenger was there, the challenged was not. The match was considered "met" by the Supervisor of DoS and she instructed the official to turn the matter over to the Baronial Council as a forfeit against the challenged. Huma Dragonbane and Jeffrey Oakenshield then embarked upon an Honor Match, deemed unofficial but called by a sanctioned caller, whereby if Huma
lost, he would not press his challenge, and if Jeff lost, he would forfeit his ring. Huma lost. Some time later, Dalamar informed the Community that his father had died and this is why he was unable to meet his challenge commitment. Later, Huma went back on his vow and said he would, in fact, press his challenge as per his right.
As a participant in the Baronial Council, I was given this information. The Barons discussed the matter, and it was decided that there would be two phases, or two issues, to deal with.
As per the rules, under Part 2, Challenge Rules, Barons Council (bold emphasis mine),
Item 1, "A Baron's Council shall be convened in the occurrence of a Baron or the Overlord retiring while a challenge is pending or in the case of a forfeit.
<snip>
Item 5, ...Choices will include, but not be limited to;
(a) Granting the challenger the victory by default
(b) Appointing another to fight against the challenger in place of
the person challenged
(c) Voiding the challenge and returning the challenger's peer wins"
After a preliminary discussion, Kalamere culled from the information a short itemized list (herein called "Ballot 1"), which you have all seen:
"1) Who shall hold the title of Overlord?
(a) Dalamar retains the title, with or without some form of censure
(b) Huma takes the title by virtue of Dalamar's failure to appear
(c) A rematch is schedule and fought between Huma and Dalamar to determine the Overlord
(d) Some other method is used to make the determination. One such example here would be Walker's suggestion of the tournament."
While at first glance the rematch seemed the most reasonable, I had to stop and think that, as I said in a previous posting, "Logically, if A is that Dalamar retains his crown, then C must assume that his crown is in question and that he cannot act as Overlord until the rematch has been fought."
Again, as I said in a previous posting, while the match may have been forfeit, I do not believe the title to be forfeit. Dalamar had a death in his family, and we, as a community, should respect the grieving and allow him to defend his title as Overlord. We do not have to award anything to any challenger for a fight he did not fight.
In this Ballot 1 phase, the Baronial Council voted that Dalamar's title was not forfeit. Huma's actions after the matter was turned over to the Council have no bearing on my judgement of Dalamar's title, which is what we were asked to judge.
Huma's actions do, however, have bearing on the next phase of voting (herein called "Ballot 2"), where the council decides on what censures to place on the Overlord, if any, and what to allow the challenger in question. Options include, culled from discussions by Kalamere Ar'Din:
Section I.
A) As to Huma's peer wins:
(1) The should be revoked
(2) They should not be revoked
(3) Other... please explain.
B) As to Huma's right to challenge again this cycle.
(1) Said right should be revoked.
(2) Said right should be revoked only in regard to the Overlord
(3) Huma should retain his right to challenge
(4) Other.. please explain.
C) Herein, list anything else you wish considered in regard to Huma.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Section II.
<snip> ...Herein there are two questions that must be answered. (1) Should the Overlord be censured in some manner and (2) If the Overlord is to be censured, how should it be done.
Huma entered into an honor agreement saying he would not press his right to challenge if he lost. He lost. Later, he decided that he would press his right to challenge. However, he was there for the challenge match, despite hardships placed upon him outside the DoS community.
While I have great sympathy toward Dalamar as losing a family member is devastating, I do not want to give the impression that it is somehow acceptable for a challenged party to not show up to defend a title without some sort of penalty to pay. I do not believe taking away his title is a fair penalty for attending to his family during a death. I do not believe restricting the rights he has as Overlord is fair penalty, either. I give Dalamar the
benefit of the doubt that he informed us as soon as possible. To argue that he could before he left is speculative and irrelevant to the matter at hand.
In summary:
Ballot 1 was strictly about the matter of the title, i.e., who deserves the title? It was decided by majority that Dalamar deserves the title.
Ballot 2 was strictly about the matter of penalty to apply to the Overlord. I can, will, and did, take into consideration Huma's actions, as well as Dalamar's, when deciding the fate of our Overlord and the sanctity and spirit of that title.
I thank you for reading thus far,
Morgan du Cornwall
Baron, 5th Ring
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: joaknshld@aol.com (J Oaknshld)
Date: 18 Oct 1998 20:11:38 EDT
Everyone keeps forgettin'....IT WAS HUMA'S OFFER, IDEA, DECISION, AGREEMENT.
Huma Dragonbane equated a match with me fer my ring = his right ta challenge Dalamar.
Huma Dragonbane was willin' ta place his right on da line fer a shot at removin' a loyal baron.
Huma Dragonbane was in control of each and every term, as well as agreed fully ta da match.
Huma Dragonbane hasn't been left out in da cold, he started it all with his offer ta me which I accepted FROM HIM. If Huma really wanted it only ta be decided by da council he would have kept his yap shut and his blade sheathed.
~J
Date: 18 Oct 1998 20:11:38 EDT
Everyone keeps forgettin'....IT WAS HUMA'S OFFER, IDEA, DECISION, AGREEMENT.
Huma Dragonbane equated a match with me fer my ring = his right ta challenge Dalamar.
Huma Dragonbane was willin' ta place his right on da line fer a shot at removin' a loyal baron.
Huma Dragonbane was in control of each and every term, as well as agreed fully ta da match.
Huma Dragonbane hasn't been left out in da cold, he started it all with his offer ta me which I accepted FROM HIM. If Huma really wanted it only ta be decided by da council he would have kept his yap shut and his blade sheathed.
~J
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 18 Oct 1998 20:48:14 EDT
Begging your pardons, everyone, I realized I neglected to copy to the boards my vote for Ballot 2. Here it is:
To: Kalamere, QuickVarMG, XJaycyndaX, Maxim128
To: J Oaknshld, AJaybird2, Jakvaltrds, Zen 80s
To: Sartan Z, X Gnort X, Gimmzak, WaIkrBoh
CC: RDI Helix
Section I.
A) As to Huma's peer wins:
(2) They should not be revoked
B) As to Huma's right to challenge again this cycle.
(2) Said right should be revoked only in regard to the Overlord
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Section II.
(1) Should the Overlord be censured in some manner
Yes
(2) If the Overlord is to be censured, how should it be done.
He should be fined an agreed upon amount to the agreed upon parties, as per previous suggestions.
Walker and Seamus suggested this, and I support it, "There shall be in the histories a notice of official censure of the Overlord, as well as detailing the punishment."
Date: 18 Oct 1998 20:48:14 EDT
Begging your pardons, everyone, I realized I neglected to copy to the boards my vote for Ballot 2. Here it is:
To: Kalamere, QuickVarMG, XJaycyndaX, Maxim128
To: J Oaknshld, AJaybird2, Jakvaltrds, Zen 80s
To: Sartan Z, X Gnort X, Gimmzak, WaIkrBoh
CC: RDI Helix
Section I.
A) As to Huma's peer wins:
(2) They should not be revoked
B) As to Huma's right to challenge again this cycle.
(2) Said right should be revoked only in regard to the Overlord
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Section II.
(1) Should the Overlord be censured in some manner
Yes
(2) If the Overlord is to be censured, how should it be done.
He should be fined an agreed upon amount to the agreed upon parties, as per previous suggestions.
Walker and Seamus suggested this, and I support it, "There shall be in the histories a notice of official censure of the Overlord, as well as detailing the punishment."
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthae@aol.com (Sidartha E)
Date: 19 Oct 1998 23:07:18 EDT
>>If the Overlord is nae punished for missing his match, and the walord takes the brunt I shall nae longer swear my loyalty to the crown<<
So, if I am not mistaken, if the Council votes for Huma to be punished and not Dalamar, then you will chose to be Renegade or Neutral to Dalamar?
~Sidartha Elgarette~
Mistress-At-Arms
Date: 19 Oct 1998 23:07:18 EDT
>>If the Overlord is nae punished for missing his match, and the walord takes the brunt I shall nae longer swear my loyalty to the crown<<
So, if I am not mistaken, if the Council votes for Huma to be punished and not Dalamar, then you will chose to be Renegade or Neutral to Dalamar?
~Sidartha Elgarette~
Mistress-At-Arms